Axis: Some thoughts on winning the war with production points

[daskomodo]

[:)] Kinda hard to win with Production Points with auto-victory turned off, no?

Also note that Leningrad and Moscow seem important, but have minimal resources. Best focus your efforts in southern Russia (with some forces up north to keep him honest)

[James Ward]

Leningrad is good to take because you get the Finns. Plus you can cut off lend lease by taking the 2 northern provinces which makes taking Russia even easier.

[daskomodo]

Yes, you're right, I shoudn't have put Leningrad there. Must have been distracted. But obsessing over moscow can be unhealthy.

[MrQuiet]

I am consistently able to achieve an auto victory by the end of '43 on normal difficulty

But normal difficulty is not very difficult. No?

Just $.02
-MrQuiet

[f15eagle]

But normal difficulty is not very difficult. No?

Just $.02
-MrQuiet

Just getting out of bed in the morning is like a "Challenging" level task, so I'll celebrate achieving a victory on normal level in WaW. The AI is good enough that I feel pretty good about winning in a straight up fight. To those of you who win consistently on the harder levels, salute.

[f15eagle]

[:)] Kinda hard to win with Production Points with auto-victory turned off, no?

For experimentation's sake, I loaded an autosave from before I got the auto victory and just played through to the end to see what result I could achieve. Just wanted to see a couple of alternate endings to the same game. Hope that clarifies my statement.

[Grifman]

ORIGINAL: 5cats

The Allies invaded & violated a LOT of neutralities and international laws, but they wrote the history books eh?

I'm not aware that they covered this up, maybe you just don't read good history books

[TOCarroll]

[:)] I am astounded at the diversity of stratagies available to both players. The game is as easy to play as "Axis & Allies", but has more workable choices than "Advanced Third Reich" (Which is a favorite boardgame). The designers ability to use simpler rules is incredable. Example: Not allowing factories to be destroyed forces the player to alocate scarce resources if he wants to keep the bad guys from getting the extra capacity. The seperation of production into Population, Resources and Factories works very well. The list goes on.... Five Stars ![:'(]

Prussian Tom

[5cats]

Not so much covered up, but "spun" differently.
They didn't "invade" neutrals, they "liberated" them (from their neutrality I suppose)
The USA didn't supply aircraft to Britian in 1940, they "stored them near the Canadian border" (we Canadians came across, pushed them into Canada and flew them back to the airbases)
etc etc
I love history books! Reading between the lines is my favorite part!
And yes this is a 5 star game! Simple enough to be fun, complex enough to remain fun after 20 games [&o] [8D]

[daskomodo]

I do remember reading in a book about a US officer/diplomat threatening Sweden to stop sending supplies to Germany, otherwise, some bombers might get "lost" and wind up bombing Stockholm.
(sorry, I can't recall where I read it, so I can just paraphrase)

Might be fun to put that policy into effect.

[Agema]

Er, please. The idea that Britain was going to invade Norway is deep into the sorts of things Nazi apologists argue when trying to make out Hitler was just trying to proactively defend Germany from allied aggression.

Churchill thought the iron ore should be stopped if shipments from Norway resumed (it was on hiatus.) What is true is that amongst the plans to prevent it was occupying forces at the ports. He had no authority to carry this out, the British cabinet and PM had to debate the options and refused to invade a neutral country, so they took a lesser plan to lay mines around the relevant harbours. That was still a violation of Norwegian territory, and there was another when they liberated the British POWs on the Altmark in Norwegian waters. Whatever, those incidents are a long, long way from actually invading a neutral country.

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: Agema

Er, please. The idea that Britain was going to invade Norway is deep into the sorts of things Nazi apologists argue when trying to make out Hitler was just trying to proactively defend Germany from allied aggression.

Just because neo-nazis are fond of skewing historical facts does not mean Allied policies and actions should be analysed and called for what they were.

Churchill thought the iron ore should be stopped if shipments from Norway resumed (it was on hiatus.) What is true is that amongst the plans to prevent it was occupying forces at the ports. He had no authority to carry this out, the British cabinet and PM had to debate the options and refused to invade a neutral country, so they took a lesser plan to lay mines around the relevant harbours. That was still a violation of Norwegian territory, and there was another when they liberated the British POWs on the Altmark in Norwegian waters. Whatever, those incidents are a long, long way from actually invading a neutral country.

Mining someone's national waters is an act of agression. Just because British weren't planning on enslaving Norwegians and eliminating Norwegian citizense of Jewish faith, does not mean that British aggresive actions shouldn't be pointed out. German merchants were entitled to ferry ore from Narvik just as British ones were entitled to ferry supplies from New York Harbor. Had Germans sent a submarine to mine the entrance in New York Harbor in 1940, USA would rightly regard this as an act of war against USA.

And Norway is not the only example of British invasions of neutral countries under various pretexts. Iceland, Iraq and Persia were all a theatres where British soldiers arrived or maintained themselves against the wish of the local population although they were not the formal part of British Empire and Commonwealth.

British military intervention in Greece in 1944/45 was also blatant meddling into Greek affairs where Churchill instructed local commander to behave like commander of an occupied town whose population mutinied.


Drax

[Agema]

I stated that the British violated Norwegian sovereignty, so I've not called it what it wasn't. Nor have I queried that the British (or Americans, or Soviets) generally kicked weaker countries into line when it suited them - nor has much changed in the last 60 years. The fact remains however that the British were not about to invade and occupy a neutral Norway at the point that Germany piled the troops in.

Incidentally, I'd stress I'm not accusing anyone of being a Nazi apologist, in case anyone thought I did from my last edit.

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: Agema

I stated that the British violated Norwegian sovereignty, so I've not called it what it wasn't. Nor have I queried that the British (or Americans, or Soviets) generally kicked weaker countries into line when it suited them - nor has much changed in the last 60 years. The fact remains however that the British were not about to invade and occupy a neutral Norway at the point that Germany piled the troops in.

That's correct as far as April is concerned. But Allies did contemplate a military intervention on behalf of Finland against Soviet Union. Such intervention would have started from Narvik and would have effectivelly closed it for the trade with Germans.

One Dutch historian wrote how Norway would have probably be left alone if both sides were sure the other side was not going to invade it first.


Drax

[Gargoyle]

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer

German merchants were entitled to ferry ore from Narvik just as British ones were entitled to ferry supplies from New York Harbor. Had Germans sent a submarine to mine the entrance in New York Harbor in 1940, USA would rightly regard this as an act of war against USA.

Entitled? In my mind, an enemy is not "entitled" to do anything that furthers their war effort against you. The Germans did not think the english were "entitled" to ferry supplies from New York Harbor. They just could not do anything to stop it. And if they could, they would not want bring the US into the war.

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: Gargoyle

Entitled? In my mind, an enemy is not "entitled" to do anything that furthers their war effort against you. The Germans did not think the english were "entitled" to ferry supplies from New York Harbor. They just could not do anything to stop it. And if they could, they would not want bring the US into the war.

You can not attack enemy within territorial waters of a neutral country. It is a violation of neutrality. If you violate's someone's neutrality you are actually attacking the neutral.

The only difference is that United States was far more powerful neutral than Norway, but international law does not make difference between powerful and weak neutrals. Attacking German merchants in Norwegian territorial waters would be an attack on Norway.


Drax

[PyleDriver]

This is the simple fact...If you play the AI, you dont know how to play this game...You must be bi-polar, change hats, and truly want to beat the other guy ( yourself ). I've put 1500 hours in this game, and have tried almost everything...But once you play the real thing, another human person, who's played everything he thought was possiable, then you find out there was so many other things possiable. Then you begin to think up things you never thought of before...An ass kicking helps...lol

[8D]
Jon

[Krisanie]

"...This is the simple fact...If you play the AI, you dont know how to play this game...You must be bi-polar, change hats, and truly want to beat the other guy ( yourself )..."  Why don't you say "If bombs fall on Berlin, you can call me Meyer?"
I just happened to come accross this game the first day it hit the stores about a year & a half ago. I have many, many hours (days, weeks) of play, but because I work nights I usually do play the AI, and I think that I know how to play. Sure, taking on another human is always the best, but I have a hard time finding someone who has the time when I do...for 24 or 36 hours straight.
I prefer to play "20 years war." Some people focus just on gaining production points for a brief shining moment, but I want to smash, destroy, sink to the bottom the insects who are fool enough to oppose my goal of seeing the word in red & grey. And if the only person I can play agains is the AI, so be it.
If I were to suggest a change in the game, I would allow the use of 1/2 of captured population for population points. Unfortuantely, there is a historical aspect to this: there has been examples of forced labor in every single war that I can think of. As disturbing as some examples have been, it is a historical fact and quite frankly, I could use the population points. 
 
If you're gonna shoot, shoot. Don't talk! (Tuco)